The Influence of Different Speech Processor and Hearing Aid Settings on Speech Perception Outcomes in Electric Acoustic Stimulation Patients

Vermeire, Katrien; Anderson, Ilona; Flynn, Mark; Heyning, Paul Van de

doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31815d6326

Cited by 47 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The benefits for bimodal listeners with better hearing in the nonimplanted ear are similar to those seen in Hybrid or EAS users in that speech perception improves with less overlap of the CI and HA in the same ear (Karsten et al, 2013;Vermeire et al, 2008). This study showed that the improvement in speech perception for the bimodal subjects in this study was in quiet, unlike the Hybrid study that found the benefit only in noise (Karsten et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 40%

“…The NAL-NL1 fitting strategy was implemented in this study and in the Karsten et al (2013) Hybrid study, whereas the Vermeire et al (2008) EAS study used Oticon's proprietary fitting rationale. Both of these fitting strategies apply the half-gain rule for amplification.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, studies in patients with Hybrid or EAS devices have clearly shown that raising the lowest frequency encoded by the CI (i.e., from 188 Hz to 500 Hz), and thus reducing overlap between electric and acoustic frequencies, improved speech perception benefits in noise, but not quiet (Karsten et al, 2013;Vermeire, Anderson, Flynn, & Van de Heyning, 2008). For example, in the Hybrid study by Karsten et al (2013), SRTs in background babble significantly improved for individuals using the Hybrid CI when programmed in the meet condition, in which the lowfrequency residual hearing was acoustically amplified and frequencies above the residual hearing region were stimulated electrically, in comparison to the overlap condition, in which there was a mid-frequency region being stimulated both electrically and acoustically.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing

Fowler

Eggleston

Reavis³

et al. 2016

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a Purpose: The objective was to determine whether speech perception could be improved for bimodal listeners (those using a cochlear implant [CI] in one ear and hearing aid in the contralateral ear) by removing low-frequency information provided by the CI, thereby reducing acoustic-electric overlap. Method: Subjects were adult CI subjects with at least 1 year of CI experience. Nine subjects were evaluated in the CI-only condition (control condition), and 26 subjects were evaluated in the bimodal condition. CIs were programmed with 4 experimental programs in which the low cutoff frequency (LCF) was progressively raised. Speech perception was evaluated using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant words in quiet, AzBio sentences in background babble, and spondee words in background babble. Results: The CI-only group showed decreased speech perception in both quiet and noise as the LCF was raised. Bimodal subjects with better hearing in the hearing aid ear (< 60 dB HL at 250 and 500 Hz) performed best for words in quiet as the LCF was raised. In contrast, bimodal subjects with worse hearing (> 60 dB HL at 250 and 500 Hz) performed similarly to the CI-only group. Conclusions: These findings suggest that reducing lowfrequency overlap of the CI and contralateral hearing aid may improve performance in quiet for some bimodal listeners with better hearing.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 40%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing

Fowler

Eggleston

Reavis³

et al. 2016

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The treatment map assigns frequencies from 400 to 7,190 Hz to the same active electrodes. We chose a treatment map based on recommendations from Vermeire et al (2008), in which fittings are individualized, and overlap is moderate, at most. The treatment map allows frequencies <400 Hz to be presented only acoustically, frequencies from 400 to 750 Hz to be provided both acoustically and electrically, and frequencies >800 Hz to be represented only electrically.…”

Section: Right Ear (Ci)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across studies, there is no consensus regarding the best degree of overlap, and results also varied with outcome measure. Vermeire et al (2008) emphasize that not only must the fitting of the CI be coordinated with that of the HA, but the HA fitting protocol should depend on the degree and configuration of the acoustic thresholds. That is, the "best" amount of frequency overlap may depend on the degree of residual hearing that can be amplified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Ears and Two (or More?) Devices: A Pediatric Case Study of Bilateral Profound Hearing Loss

Uchanski¹,

Davidson²,

Quadrizius³

et al. 2009

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in technology and expanding candidacy guidelines have motivated many clinics to consider children with precipitously sloping high-frequency hearing loss as candidates for cochlear implants (CIs). A case study is presented of a pediatric CI patient whose hearing thresholds were preserved within 10 dB of preimplant levels (125-750 Hz) after receiving a fully inserted 31.5-mm electrode array at one ear. The primary goal of this study was to explore the possible benefit of using both a hearing aid (HA) and a CI at one ear while using a HA at the opposite ear. The authors find that although the use of bilateral hearing aids with a CI may only provide a slight benefit, careful attention must be paid to the coordinated fitting of devices, especially at the ear with two devices.

show abstract

Hearing with combined electric acoustic stimulation

Baumann

Helbig

2009

HNO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After cochlear implantation, individuals with sufficient residual hearing in the lower frequency region are able to successfully combine acoustic and electrical stimulation patterns to improve speech perception, especially in noise, and to improve music appraisal as well. These improvements occur through enhanced transmission of fine structure information by more accurate mapping of the fundamental frequency contour through acoustic hearing. In current cochlear implant systems, the transfer of frequency and melodic contour is very coarse, and the correct detection of pitch contour requires large frequency differences. It is assumed that the acoustically transferred part of the signal enables the cochlear implant recipient to better segregate between speech signals and interfering sounds. The detection and following of a speech signal emitted by a single talker in a multitalker babble situation is improved when fundamental frequencies as grouping cues are present. The preservation of hearing in the implanted ear must be considered a major surgical challenge. The development of very flexible and soft electrode carriers in combination with surgical approaches that minimally traumatize the inner ear enable hearing preservation in nearly all cases.

show abstract

The Influence of Different Speech Processor and Hearing Aid Settings on Speech Perception Outcomes in Electric Acoustic Stimulation Patients

Cited by 47 publications

References 16 publications

Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing

Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing

Two Ears and Two (or More?) Devices: A Pediatric Case Study of Bilateral Profound Hearing Loss

Hearing with combined electric acoustic stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About